Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Where in the World Is Larry Page?

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 245 posts

Re: Where in the World Is Larry Page?

#161

Post by kyledrake »

wybiral wrote: post #107
kyledrake wrote: post #99

> Alphabet said in a statement that it had offered its head of global affairs for the hearing and that “enabling Larry to focus on the other bets and long-term technical problems is exactly what Alphabet was set up for.” So basically they had offered someone of authority here, but the politicians wanted to have their show trial with the celebrities instead.

In the domain of information warfare and propaganda campaigns public awareness and attention is a large part of the counter strategy. So even if it were just to attract eyeballs to the issue that doesn't mean it was a "show trial". If you watch these Intelligence Committee hearings I think you'll find them to be focused on strategy, partnerships, and actions rather than some form of "trial".

Then they should have invited the actual experts on the topic at these companies. Google, again, says they offered someone to speak and were told it could only be Page. What if they told Facebook it could only be Mark and not Sheryl?

Either way, if they actually wanted the CEO of Google, that happens to be Sundar Pichai, not Larry Page (he's the CEO of the holding company).

Re: Where in the World Is Larry Page?

#162

Post by nostrademons »

I'd wondered about this when I heard Google wasn't sending any of their top brass. In my experience, it's very out of character for Google's top leadership to not predict when people are going to be pissed off about a decision. And it was stupendously easy to tell that Congress would be pissed off by this decision - when I mentioned the news to my wife she was like "You can do that? Just stand up Congress?"

I'm reminded of Margaery Tyrell's line from the season 6 finale of Game of Thrones. "Cersei understands the consequences of her absence, and she is absent anyway, which means that she does not intend to suffer those consequences."

Lest we start panicking, I don't think that this necessarily means we're all going to die in a fireball of wildfyre (though that could happen anyway). But it's likely Google actually welcomes regulation, because it will entrench their position and serve as a barrier to any new competitors emerging. They know that neither the average Congressperson nor their constituents understand economics, and so will likely pass legislation that harms Google's unborn competitors far more than it harms Google.

Re: Where in the World Is Larry Page?

#163

Post by dragonwriter »

394549 wrote: post #93
sidibe wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They offered their legal guy who is also one of the main leaders at Google and is probably the right person to talk about this but Congress refused. They want figureheads.

> They offered their legal guy who is also one of the main leaders at Google and is probably the right person to talk about this but Congress refused. They want figureheads. Why is this a problem? The CEO is the public face of the company. If Congress wants to question the company about serious issues, it shouldn't settle for a little-known subordinate who has much less authority or accountability for the decisions C…

> Why is this a problem?

It's not a problem other than the fact that it is a clear signal that the purpose of the invitation is public spectacle, not soliciting testimony whose content had a substantive legislative purpose.

Another clear signal of that is the use of invitations rather than subpoenas, followed by dramatic complaints about the invitation being declined when the person best able to address the substance (though less attractive as a PR punching bag) was offered.

Another clear signal of that is the empty chair theatrics.

And if people learned to recognize these signals of unseriousness, then unserious approaches will become less effective, and if Congress wants to be seen to be addressing an issue, they’ll need to actually seriously address it.

Re: Where in the World Is Larry Page?

#164

Post by tssva »

Zelphyr wrote: post #91
dibstern wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely disagree. I don’t know how you could say that. Business leaders have to answer for their companies actions, and senate hearings is one way we have of them doing that. And as wybiral said, it was a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing. Maybe I’m jaded, but your response reminds me of those from Theranos employees on this very forum when it was criticised.

I agree that business leaders have to answer for their actions. But that is clearly not what is happening at these inquiries. The CEO of Equifax was called to one when they had their major security breach last year. What came of that? Can we all honestly say, a year later, that he answered for his company's actions? Nothing of consequence happened to him, very little if anything of consequence happened to his company…

Why should he be facing jail time? He was invited to attend and didn't. Declining an invitation isn't a crime.

If Congress really thought it was necessary for him to attend they would have used their subpoena power either initially or after he declined the invitation. Refusing a congressional subpoena is a crime.

The fact that they haven't should tell you how important they really think it is. Most of them are probably happier that he didn't because it gives them more chances for sound bites.

After all the hearing were just for show. The real questions they wanted answered were submitted to the companies in writing and all of the companies including Google/Alphabet provided written responses.

Re: Where in the World Is Larry Page?

#165

Post by wybiral »

joshuamorton wrote: post #155
wybiral wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which Intelligence Committee hearings are you talking about? I linked to a recent one in a grandparent post that has almost no grandstanding as far as I'm concerned and for the IC that's usually how it is. I can't speak for the larger committees with more media attention.

Let me put it this way: if you want to have a real productive discussion on data privacy, you want the head lawyer who, despite Senate grandstanding, probably does make legal decisions for the company. You don't want the guy who thinks that google, probably uses version control software, but doesn't know what it is. The ic didn't want a decision maker, they wanted a heel.

Let me put it this way: when the entire point is to educate the public about ongoing attacks and to show that these companies are taking all of this seriously... Snubbing our Intelligence Committee because Page didn't prioritize it highly enough seems, to me, to be the least helpful thing your employer could have done.

Re: Where in the World Is Larry Page?

#166

Post by dragonwriter »

chosenbreed wrote: post #160
joering2 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That and also they learnt their lesson: first Facebook hearings were very frustrating when all they heard was: “I dont know answer to this questio, and I will ask Mr. Zickerberg [when I see him next time] and will let you know [when in reality I will never see you again because if FB is ever invited again we will send another top exec]”. I for once appload congressmen/women for not falling for this sinple trick again…

Okay...so they didn't fall that trick...but I get the impression that all they want is the opportunity to grill the top executive. The best that can happen is that said executive will apologize, prostrate, etc and the show goes on...

> but I get the impression that all they want is the opportunity to grill the top executive

Of that's all they wanted, they'd issue a subpoena for the top executive. That removes choice.

What they want is, in order of preference:

(1) Both ritual validation of the legitimacy of their efforts via the voluntary participation of top executives combined with the increased media attention for their showboating that comes with having the top executive in the hot seat, or, failing that

(2) The opportunity to showboat about the firms decision not to send the top executive.

If they were interested in substance, they would accept the firm sending the most appropriate person to address the actual issue, and if they felt the offered person wasn't the right person, they'd issue subpoenas to compel the testimony of the people who are really needed. But substantive answers aren't what the hearing is about.

Re: Where in the World Is Larry Page?

#167

Post by atomical »

y-c-o-m-b wrote: post #98
dibstern wrote: post #80

I don’t understand people on here complaining about the Senate demanding that the leaders of a business answer for its actions. Sending your lawyer or an underling is (1) a show of disrespect, (2) it shows you’re not taking responsibility for your company, and (3) when the person answering the questions isn’t really in charge, they can’t answer properly and they can’t commit their companies to behaving differently. P…

I don't think it's pro-Google, I think it has to do with the fact that these hearings are made up of a gang of angry old people with God complex that not only do not understand technology, but don't really have a desire to understand it nor the desire to really change anything. I don't blame Google one bit for not wanting to waste time and be ridiculed by these clowns.

What you wrote could easily be applied to Google.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/09/13/breitbart...

Re: Where in the World Is Larry Page?

#168

Post by teddyh »

Retric wrote: post #103
wybiral wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main point of the "exercise" is to discuss the issues and a few politicians hijack a few minutes of time to make political jabs for the media. The rest of it is still important. They're asking questions and forming their perception of the situation which they use to shape policy.

If they simply want fact finding they could do that over a phone call.* The circus is very much the point. * Granted, phone calls don't have the weight of purgery to keep people honest. But, that only goes so far.

> purgery

That’s “perjury”.

Re: Where in the World Is Larry Page?

#169

Post by rthomas6 »

puzzle wrote: post #134
wybiral wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're citing a Wired interview with one member of the committee which isn't the same thing as a real committee hearing.

[You asked if I'm a Googler] I used to be a Googler, years ago. That's how I know how ridiculous the outrage and the downplaying of Walker are. I'm glad I can talk now without being accused of defending my employer. I brought up Warner because he's one of the most persistent voices, yet he wanted to talk about China, which is not related to election interference.

Did you reply to the wrong person?

Re: Where in the World Is Larry Page?

#170

Post by coolso »

agoodthrowaway wrote: post #56

From a PR point of view Google has handled this whole privacy debacle very well. By keeping a very low profile on privacy, they’ve made sure Facebook takes the heat. Facebook’s horrendous management of the issue has also allowed Google to slide under the radar on the topic. Generally I think Page is doing the right thing by keeping a low public profile.

> From a PR point of view Google has handled this whole privacy debacle very well.

Yes, but only because Google allegedly aided the media's preferred candidate, while Facebook allegedly aided the candidate that was successful and that the media hated. Google not showing up means the media can sort of just sweep their behavior under the rug, which is good for Google's PR in the minds of Americans who supported the media's favorite candidate....but it's terrible PR for the other half of the country who voted for the other one and sees the bias. You're just not hearing about it much because most of the media leans the same direction Google as a company does.

Can you imagine if Mark Zuckerberg hadn't shown up? How big of a story that would have been in almost every single media outlet?

Google's only sliding under the radar because the media is helping them slide under the radar. I assure you if Google's policies had aided the winning candidate's campaign - intentionally or not - that would not be the case.

Post reply on HN